1. Technology in the classroom http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbVKP hVCRFI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbVKP hVCRFI

2. Technology has evolved to the point where we, in our classrooms, are able to have different multimodal literacies… How do teachers, who are not familiar with the different types of technology that can be used as in their classroom instruction, get to where they are comfortable using new technologies in their classrooms?

3. Technology Teachers’ Student-Centered Beliefs Rachel Bray, Ph.D. Candidate Mercer University

4. Present.me https://present.me/view/118393- technology-teachers-student-cen https://present.me/view/118393- technology-teachers-student-cen

5. Introduction We are living in a world that is constantly impacted by rapid developments in the domains of science and information and communication technologies (ICT) (Angeli & Valanides, 2009).

6. Introduction Existing knowledge quickly becomes outdated and obsolete, and the acquisition of new knowledge and its innovative applications result in a continuous transformation of our cultural, social, and political environments (Angeli & Valanides, 2009). Even though teachers now have the technology for use in their classroom instruction, “teachers’ beliefs guide the decisions teachers make and actions they take in the classroom” (Palak & Walls, 2009).

7. Partial Literature Review Many studies have investigated whether schools’ technology investments and teachers' increasing ability to use technology have played a major role in the way teachers use technology to improve student learning outcomes (Palak & Walls, 2009).

8. Partial Literature Review The preparation of teachers in the educational uses of technology appears to be in almost every improvement plan for education and educational reform efforts (Angeli & Valanides, 2009). The lack of theory and conceptual frameworks to inform and guide research in the area of teaching with technology is a major weakness in the educational technology literature (Angeli & Valanides, 2009).

9. Partial Literature Review Selfe (1990) stated, “until we share some theoretical vision of this topic we will never glimpse the larger picture that could give our classroom efforts and meaning (quoted in Angeli & Valanides, 2009).

10. Several years ago, Shulman (1986) brought the concept of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) to the forefront of educational literature. He argued that effective teachers must not only possess knowledge of their content areas and knowledge of effective instructional practices but also an understanding of how content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge interact within the classroom. Mishra and Koehler expanded Shulman's model of PCK to include technological knowledge as the third domain of knowledge effective teachers should possess (TPCK). They made the case for including technological knowledge in their new framework due to the complex ways educational technologies have changed the nature of teaching and learning (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

11. Schulman’s PCK along with Mischra & Koehler’s (2006) TPCK added to the body of knowledge regarding technology- using teachers and their beliefs (educational philosophy) regarding student centered classrooms.

12. The field of education has undergone a significant shift in thinking about the nature of human learning and the conditions that best promote the varied dimensions of human learning (Applefield, Huber, & Moallem, 2001). As in psychology, there has been a paradigm shift in designed instruction; from behaviorism to cognitivism and now to constructivism (Cooper, 1993).

13. Although by no means an entirely new conceptualization of learner and the process of learner, constructivist perspectives on learning have become increasingly influential in the past twenty years and can be said to represent a paradigm shift in the epistemology of knowledge and theory of learning (Applefield, Huber, & Moallem, 2001).

14. How is constructivism translated into practice [in the technology classroom] and what should teachers and prospective teachers know about the theory and its educational implications (Applefield, Huber, & Moallem, 2001)?

15. The purpose of this study was to address the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and their instructional technology practices via student centered pedagogy in their classrooms. The research hypothesis guiding this study was: for Title I teachers who frequently integrate technology, will there be a mean difference between students who get the traditional technology instruction (placebo), students who receive constructivist-enhanced instruction, and students who received a combination of random, non-theoretical technology instruction(omnibus)?

16. Instruments Used The following instruments were used for the quantitative portion of this study: the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) (Taylor & Fraser, 1991), which is a self-reporting survey that measures a student’s perceptions of a teacher’s instructional technology use in the classroom. This survey is composed of 28 statements using a 5-point Likert scale with response options ranging from “very often to “never”.

17. Instruments Used Constructivist Learning Environment Survey Comparative Form for teachers has 20 questions, where responses range from “almost never, seldom, sometimes, often, almost always”. (revised)

18. Participant Selection Selected participants were only from rural, Title I-designated schools in the state of Georgia 200 surveys were randomly mailed out to this sample of teachers

19. Participant Selection Once 50 teachers responded to the random CLES sampling, a second set of 100 Constructivist Learning Environment Survey—Student Form surveys were given to each teacher to give to their students at random. Only thirty student forms (CLES) were returned.

20. Results An analysis of the data showed that the four assumptions for ANOVA (Field, 2013) were met.

21. ANOVA

22. Tukey Post Hoc

23. Results Quantitative AnalysisQualitative Analysis ANOVA: p=.035 p<.05 Post Hoc (Tukey’s): No statistical significant difference between groups; N=30, therefore a larger sample size may indicate a statistical difference. Teacher Pedagogical Philosophy Interview Student interviews Lesson plans (To be completed at a later date)

24. Limitations of the study Although a random sample of 200 rural, Title I teachers were selected, only 50 responded to and returned the initial CLES—Teacher Form (revised). These 50 teachers were then requested to select 100 students to complete the CLES (Student Form). Only 30 forms were returned for the quantitative portion of this study. Perhaps selecting from a population under different criteria, such as teachers from technology-rich schools, or providing incentives for teachers and students who return the forms could possibly help motivate possible participants for this study of technology using teachers’ student centered beliefs.

25. Discussion/Conclusion In this study of teachers beliefs along with students’ perceptions of a constructivist classroom, an ANOVA analysis of teachers’ beliefs and student perceptions of a constructivist classroom found there was some statistically significance (p=.035). Although this research sample was small (N=30), it does reflect literature on technology using teachers’ student centered beliefs of a constructivist classroom.

26. Although by no means an entirely new conceptualization of learner and the process of learner, constructivist perspectives on learning have become increasingly influential in the past twenty years and can be said to represent a paradigm shift in the epistemology of knowledge and theory of learning (Applefield, Huber, & Moallem, 2001).

27. Conclusion In Conclusion, in this study of teachers beliefs along with students’ perceptions of a constructivist classroom, an ANOVA analysis of teachers’ beliefs and student perceptions of a constructivist classroom found there was some statistical significance (p<.05). Although this research sample was small (N=30), it does reflect literature on technology using teachers’ student centered beliefs of a constructivist classroom.

28. References Angeli, C., Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT–TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education 52(1), 154-168. Sefton-Green, J. (2006). Youth, technology, and media cultures. Review of Research in Education, (30) 279-306. Palak, D., & Walls, R. T. (2009). Teachers' Beliefs and Technology Practices: A Mixed- methods Approach. Journal Of Research On Technology In Education, 41 (4), 417-441. Coley, R. J., Cradler, J., & Engel, P. K. (1997). Computers and classrooms: The status of technology in U.S. schools. Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service. Retrieved November 23, 2013 from ftp://ftp.ets.org/ pub/res/compclss.pdf Gess-Newsome, J., Blocher, M., Clark, J., Menasco, J., & Willis, E. (2003). Technology infused professional development: A framework for development and analysis. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 3(3), 324-340. Shulman, L. S. (1986). "Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching." Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. Sadker, M. P., & Sadker, D. M. (2003). Teachers, schools, and society (6th edition.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Holfield, T., Barron, A., Hernandez, S. (2007). Development and validation of the teachers’ perceptions of computers survey. Presented at the National Educational Computing Conference, Atlanta, GA. Schwarz, G. (2000). Renewing teaching through media literacy. Phi Delta Kappan, 37, 8- 12. Davidson, S. (2000). Teaching with the world wide web. Phi Delta Kappan, 37, 13-16.